Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: Taking Random Photos in Long Beach Can Put You in Handcuffs (Really)

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: Taking Random Photos in Long Beach Can Put You in Handcuffs (Really)

 
 
David Dyer-Bennet
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2011
On Aug 26, 3:46*pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:11:46 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >On Aug 26, 2:23*pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:33:19 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet

>
> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> >> >It's "about" police officers only because the original
> >> >post that started this thread was suggesting that
> >> >the low artistic merit of the photos was part of the
> >> >reason for considering them suspicious.

>
> >> It did not. *"Artistic merit" was never mentioned.

>
> >> Not only did the article not mention "artistic merit", it said
> >> "If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a
> >> refinery, it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with
> >> the individual."

>
> >> That says that the image doesn't even have to be seen by the officer,
> >> let alone judged for merit. *What prompts the officer to make contact
> >> is seeing the person apparently taking photographs of something like a
> >> refinery. *

>
> >And when questioned, that was explained
> >as being because they couldn't be of artistic value.

>
> I don't understand that. *Where are you getting that?


I was wrong.

It wasn't later; it was in the very first post in this thread, which
said:

....down in LBC McDonnell is
keeping the anti-media flame alive.

He recently declared that ...

... detaining people who are snapping pictures "with no apparent
esthetic value" is within department policy, according to the
Long Beach Post.

The chief of police there is setting policy in
terms of the esthetic value of the pictures.
That's what this whole thread has been about;
I don't know how you missed it.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2011
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:48:04 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Aug 26, 3:42*pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I just don't see a connection between occupation and artistic ability
>> with the exception of those in occupations where artistic ability is a
>> requirement for the job.

>
>Yes! That, exactly, precisely, is what I said in the first place!
>That, with the exception of a few professions which absolutely
>require you to be able to judge art, it's not something you
>can expect to find in the members of some given profession.


The problem is that you are assuming that a policeman is going to look
at a photograph and judge the photograph based on some artistic basis.

He isn't. If he does look at the photograph, he's going to be looking
for a reason it was taken. If the photograph shows guard positions,
security aspects, proximity of facilities to the fence, or anything
that makes him suspicious of the *reason*, he's going to question you
further.

If the image doesn't contain aspects that make him suspicious, he
isn't going to judge the photo on artistic merit. He isn't going to
be looking for diagonals, rule of thirds, bokeh, what is in focus, or
composition.

He doesn't need to have any artistic ability, skills, or appreciation
of photographic technique to make the decisions he's interested in.

You seem to think he's incapable of rating the photo like it was an
entry in a contest. He may be incapable of that, but that's not what
he'd be doing.

The least artistically inclined among us can tell the difference
between a skyline of complex refinery equipment and a close-up of gap
under a fence.

And, as I've said before, he's interested in your demeanor when
approached. Reading that *is* part of the skill set he acquires on
the job.



--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      08-29-2011
On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:51:51 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On Aug 26, 3:46*pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 13:11:46 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >On Aug 26, 2:23*pm, tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:33:19 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet

>>
>> >> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>> >> >It's "about" police officers only because the original
>> >> >post that started this thread was suggesting that
>> >> >the low artistic merit of the photos was part of the
>> >> >reason for considering them suspicious.

>>
>> >> It did not. *"Artistic merit" was never mentioned.

>>
>> >> Not only did the article not mention "artistic merit", it said
>> >> "If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a
>> >> refinery, it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with
>> >> the individual."

>>
>> >> That says that the image doesn't even have to be seen by the officer,
>> >> let alone judged for merit. *What prompts the officer to make contact
>> >> is seeing the person apparently taking photographs of something like a
>> >> refinery. *

>>
>> >And when questioned, that was explained
>> >as being because they couldn't be of artistic value.

>>
>> I don't understand that. *Where are you getting that?

>
>I was wrong.
>
>It wasn't later; it was in the very first post in this thread, which
>said:
>
>...down in LBC McDonnell is
>keeping the anti-media flame alive.
>
>He recently declared that ...
>
>.. detaining people who are snapping pictures "with no apparent
>esthetic value" is within department policy, according to the
>Long Beach Post.
>
>The chief of police there is setting policy in
>terms of the esthetic value of the pictures.
>That's what this whole thread has been about;
>I don't know how you missed it.


I didn't miss it, David. He is not setting policy based on aesthetic
value on a graded system, so the policemen are not being asked to
grade photographs. Your point seems to be that policemen are not
expected to be able to grade photographs as well as someone with
experience in judging art.

The difference between aesthetic value and no apparent aesthetic value
is "Is there something beautiful or artful about this image?". That's
what "aesthetics" means.

The policeman's test of aesthetic or not can be simply "Can this be
art?". No grading, no rating, no critique, no knowledge of artistry
is required. It's a simple "yes" or "no" test at this point.

As long as we're talking about people who are not expected to have
particular talents based on their occupation, should a Long Beach
police chief be expected to articulate a comprehensive policy in one
sentence?

If a directive was sent out the force, one would expect that someone
experienced and qualified to outline a reasonable set of working
guidelines for the individual officers to work with authored it.

What we have here, though, is not that. It's a single sentence
on-the-fly quote. Possibly, a quote stripped from context. Since it
was an oral statement, and a reporter copied it down, we have no idea
if there was elaboration or not. Personally, I don't trust a reporter
who spells "aesthetics" as "esthetics". In his profession, he's
supposed to know better.

Further, the chief refers to extant policy when he says that this is
"within department policy". Somewhere, the policy has already been
determined. He's not setting new policy.

Now stop suggesting that I missed something when it's evident that you
missed something when you jumped to the conclusion this statement
means that police officers are going to be grading photographs like
judges in a competition.

--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
On 8/29/2011 10:48 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
> On Aug 26, 3:42 pm, tony cooper<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> I just don't see a connection between occupation and artistic ability
>> with the exception of those in occupations where artistic ability is a
>> requirement for the job.

>
> Yes! That, exactly, precisely, is what I said in the first place!
> That, with the exception of a few professions which absolutely
> require you to be able to judge art, it's not something you
> can expect to find in the members of some given profession.
>


And as I stated earlier, there is a correlation of skills necessary to
perform that may not include the ability to judge art.


--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
tony cooper
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:45:36 -0400, PeterN
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>On 8/29/2011 10:48 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 3:42 pm, tony cooper<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>
>>> I just don't see a connection between occupation and artistic ability
>>> with the exception of those in occupations where artistic ability is a
>>> requirement for the job.

>>
>> Yes! That, exactly, precisely, is what I said in the first place!
>> That, with the exception of a few professions which absolutely
>> require you to be able to judge art, it's not something you
>> can expect to find in the members of some given profession.
>>

>
>And as I stated earlier, there is a correlation of skills necessary to
>perform that may not include the ability to judge art.


Conversely, a person in a job that does not require artistic skills
may be very artistic. Being an artist is often not a particularly
financially rewarding occupation. Economic necessity may keep a
promising artist in a non-artistic occupation.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-01-2011
On 9/1/2011 8:55 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Thu, 01 Sep 2011 08:45:36 -0400, PeterN
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>> On 8/29/2011 10:48 AM, David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
>>> On Aug 26, 3:42 pm, tony cooper<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I just don't see a connection between occupation and artistic ability
>>>> with the exception of those in occupations where artistic ability is a
>>>> requirement for the job.
>>>
>>> Yes! That, exactly, precisely, is what I said in the first place!
>>> That, with the exception of a few professions which absolutely
>>> require you to be able to judge art, it's not something you
>>> can expect to find in the members of some given profession.
>>>

>>
>> And as I stated earlier, there is a correlation of skills necessary to
>> perform that may not include the ability to judge art.

>
> Conversely, a person in a job that does not require artistic skills
> may be very artistic. Being an artist is often not a particularly
> financially rewarding occupation. Economic necessity may keep a
> promising artist in a non-artistic occupation.
>
>

Agreed.

--
Peter
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2011
tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Aug 2011 07:51:51 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet


>>He recently declared that ...


>>.. detaining people who are snapping pictures "with no apparent
>>esthetic value" is within department policy, according to the
>>Long Beach Post.


>>The chief of police there is setting policy in
>>terms of the esthetic value of the pictures.
>>That's what this whole thread has been about;
>>I don't know how you missed it.


> I didn't miss it, David. He is not setting policy based on aesthetic
> value on a graded system, so the policemen are not being asked to
> grade photographs. [...]
> The difference between aesthetic value and no apparent aesthetic value
> is "Is there something beautiful or artful about this image?". That's
> what "aesthetics" means.


IOW, even worse. Instead of deciding "this is somewhat aesthetic"
versus "this is probably not aesthetic" in doubtful cases, they
can basically go flip a coin, weighted by their own prejudices.


> The policeman's test of aesthetic or not can be simply "Can this be
> art?". No grading, no rating, no critique, no knowledge of artistry
> is required. It's a simple "yes" or "no" test at this point.


Sure. However to get an answer that's better than flipping a
coin, you need to understand a lot of art as it is today.

What a "true redneck" cop would understand as art and what a 'loves
art, visits art museums everywhere, collects some modern art'
cop would understand as art is going to be radically different.
Me photographing a certain part or view of an oil refinery might
be responded as 'that's not art, you're arrested on account of
causing eye cancer' or (if I actually knew what I was doing) 'hey,
you're emulating $GOOD_BUT_OBSCURE_(MODERN)_ARTIST, way to go!
Can I buy a print?' And therein lies the problem.

-Wolfgang
 
Reply With Quote
 
Wolfgang Weisselberg
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      09-16-2011
tony cooper <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2011 10:28:19 -0700 (PDT), David Dyer-Bennet


>>I made a statement about the class of
>>policeman that also applies to the class
>>of doctors and the class of software
>>engineers (which I belong to). It seems
>>to me that you're being hyper-sensitive on
>>behalf of policemen.


> What "class" of policemen?


You are either dense or obstuse on purpose or simply not up
to date with the buzzwords of software. (Just as policemen,
on the average, are not up to date on arts.)

'the class of policemen (and doctors, and software engineers)'
*obviously* refers to class in the context of OOP, object oriented
programming, where a single policeman would be an instance
(e.g. having a badge number and rank) of the class "policemen"
(having the storage slot for the badge number and a storage slot
for rank and the 'power' of arrest and so on) *or a subclass
thereof*, which in turn would be a direct or indirect ancestor
of the class "human" (which has basic things every policeman,
doctor, software engineer, ... is supposed to have, like a name,
a gender, parents, hair colour (or no hair), etc).

An individual policeman could well be an instance of a subclass
that has both the ancestor classes of policemen *and* knowledgeable
art lover[1]. That policeman would therefore be both (and a human,
too, since at least one of them has the ancestor class 'human'),
however, it is well understood such a wouldn't be the norm.

> You're digging a deeper hole, here, about
> the subjective abilities of someone in a particular occupation.


Typical, first not understanding what is being said and then
*nterpreting it to the disadvantage of the speaker.

Just like a policeman would likely say "What art?" and arrest
you for being a terrorist just because he doesn't grasp the
artistic language used. See the problem?


>>> No, you didn't, and I'm not defensive about the artistic sensibilities
>>> of policemen. *I am defensive about judging the artistic sensibilities
>>> of *anyone* based on their occupation.


>>Same thing. You're dodging the point again.


> What if I were to say that software engineers are basically incapable
> of appreciating fine art, music, or literature?


Then you'd be a stupid person.

What if I were to say anyone in Orlando wasn't capable of thinking,
much less of critical thinking? And that everyone in Florida
was into recounting votes until the 'right' answer came out?


> Is that a fair
> statement about the members of the occupation? It's certainly true
> about some, but is it a fair blanket statement? That's what you are
> doing.


No, he isn't. He's saying 'Joe Average policeman',
just as 'Joe Average $NOT_ART_NEEDING_OCCUPATION', ...

And that's a true statement.


You however, continue to harp on some long understood point,
just to be obnoxious, when it has been well understood by the
people here.


> Your "point" seems to be that you feel you are above being questioned
> in any way because you feel that you would not be doing anything
> wrong. You don't seem to recognize that a policeman's point might be
> that he doesn't know what is on your mind and that his job is to
> determine that if he feels it necessary to do so.


Yep, if you are coloured or Hispanic or wearing a long beard or
something like that, it's obvious that you might be off to no
good, but if you look like a Lehmann Brothers banker, you're no
problem at all.


-Wolfgang

[1] Not all OO languages support multiple inheritance, since
that needs a bit nontrivial thinking (like, does the 'human'
name come via 'policeman' or 'art lover', both of which
might override the name value or the name getting function
(e.g. "Officer Doe" instead of "Jane Doe"), but there are
techniques that cope with that.
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Math.random() and Math.round(Math.random()) and Math.floor(Math.random()*2) VK Javascript 15 05-02-2010 03:43 PM
Having compilation error: no match for call to (const __gnu_cxx::hash<long long int>) (const long long int&) veryhotsausage C++ 1 07-04-2008 05:41 PM
random.random(), random not defined!? globalrev Python 4 04-20-2008 08:12 AM
Windows defense handcuffs good guys Au79 Computer Support 0 08-15-2006 02:19 AM
Misc mountain photos and beach sunrise photos beachpirate2 Digital Photography 1 11-12-2003 04:41 PM



Advertisments